The Lord of the Rings — Books

Statistics

Registered: 10/25/2006 4:23 PM UTC

Posts: 583

3/29/2007 3:03 PM UTC #31

Auto-translated

In the movie, Aragorn is quite normal in terms of his physical build. It was only mentioned that he was taller than Boromir, but broader in the shoulders. What he lacks is age. In the book, his hair was half-gray, and his face was very stern and... I don't want to use this word about Aragorn, but weathered. Despite this, he turned out very well in the movie! Actually, I would only criticize the movie for a few things: - They removed Bombadil and the Barrow-downs. I understand that it was impossible to include them due to time constraints, but it's still a pity. - Arwen instead of Glorfindel, and she also pointed a sword at Aragorn's throat and drove away the Black Riders single-handedly :vomiting smiley: - Aragorn being killed and then resurrected by Arwen. It's just awful! - Gimli standing on Balin's grave (in the book, he cut off the legs of the orc who dared to do that). - A troll, not an orc, stabbed Frodo with a spear. Chainmail is a flexible thing. Frodo should have been flattened. - Legolas in battle! I haven't seen anything more disgusting. He's some kind of invulnerable arrow-shooting machine. He completely ruined half of the impression of the battles:mad: - Galadriel didn't turn out well, and that's it. Only Elrond is worse. - Aragorn was given a sword only in the third part. - The ghosts, instead of gladly joining Aragorn and being freed, wanted to kill him. I was confused:confused: - In the book, the evil will of the mountain itself prevented the Fellowship from crossing Caradhras. In the movie, it was Saruman for some reason. - The king of Rohan, for some reason, didn't listen to Gandalf and stubbornly followed his own line. - They besieged Helm's Deep with only Uruk-hai, although in the book there were many different creatures there, up to werewolves. However, overall, the movie is brilliant! I expected much worse...

С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис

Statistics

Registered: 12/10/2006 12:52 PM UTC

Posts: 677

3/30/2007 2:38 AM UTC #32

Auto-translated

- They removed Bombadil and the burial mounds. It's understandable that it couldn't be done otherwise due to time constraints, but it's still disappointing.

- It's a flaw, but I was wondering how you would depict the episode with Bombadil in an "adult" movie? After all, it was written when Tolkien was still writing a sequel to "The Hobbit" for his son.

- Arwen instead of Glorfindel, and she also held a sword to Aragorn's throat and drove away the Black Riders single-handedly :vomiting smiley:

- The justification is the same as above.

- Aragorn, who was killed and resurrected by Arwen. It's just awful!

- I agree.

- Gimli standing on Balin's grave (in the book, he cut off the legs of the orc who dared to do so).

- It's a flaw, but not a major one.

- A troll, not an orc, struck Frodo with a spear. Chainmail is a flexible thing. Frodo should have been flattened.

- It's not a major issue, it's a flaw in the same vein as the Rohirrim not being able to escape down the slope at the end of the second part because the horses would have broken their legs. It's a technical error, and Tolkien had many of them (like the supply of Utumno).

- Legolas in battle! I haven't seen anything more repulsive. Some kind of invulnerable arrow-shooting machine. It's just awful. It ruined half of the impression of the battles.

- I agree, but my impressions are still less negative. It's not completely repulsive, even if it's Hollywood-esque.

- Galadriel turned out badly, and that's it. Only Elrond is worse.

- I agree about Galadriel (have you seen Kate Blanchett in other films? They could have made her look normal! And she acts well, but here it's like "Born to be beautiful!" The only positive moment is when Frodo gives her the ring). I disagree about Elrond; the justification is above.

- Aragorn was given a sword only in the third part for some reason.

- It's not a major issue.

- Instead of gladly joining Aragorn and being freed, the ghosts wanted to kill him. I was confused.

- It's not a major issue! Besides, the ghosts of oathbreakers were unlikely to have good feelings towards the living, and especially towards the heir of Isildur, who cursed them.

- In the book, the Fellowship was prevented from crossing Caradhras by the evil will of the mountain itself. In the film, it was Saruman for some reason.

- As far as I remember, Gandalf suspected either Sauron or Saruman of the snowfall.

- The king of Rohan, for some reason, did not listen to Gandalf, but stubbornly followed his own line.

- He listened, he listened, he just objected a little, but they didn't have a very friendly relationship.

- Helm's Deep was besieged only by Uruk-hai, although in the book there were many different creatures there, up to werewolves.

- Werewolves (you probably meant Wargs?) were shown earlier. Besides, it would have been difficult to imagine Wargs climbing the walls. The Dunlendings were only shown in one episode (when Saruman incites them to attack Rohan). This is a flaw. The only truly major flaw is that they don't show the showdown in the Shire at the end.

In reply to Saruman

Statistics

Registered: 11/17/2006 10:47 AM UTC

Posts: 1,775

4/1/2007 12:44 PM UTC #33

Auto-translated

I'd like to add my two cents...
Personally, I was more surprised not by Aragorn's appearance, but by his fighting style. When, at the end of the first part, he drops his weapon in a canonical, Hollywood-style manner and starts exchanging blows with an Orc, reminiscent of glorious American brawls in some bar, that's when I felt disappointed and realized what kind of film they were making and for whom... It seems that "Hollywood" (by which I mean an entire market segment of the film industry, without specifying anything in particular) is too obsessed with the idea of equality...:smile30: That is, whether you're Aragorn or not, you'll get hit just like any ordinary foot soldier. However, in the book, he is a great hero, and I don't think I need to explain the meaning of the concept of "Hero" here, do I? :confused: Let's just say he's a hero of level 27-28... and therefore, he should be cutting through any Saruman's scum into neat little pieces with a single swing of his mighty hand. That's the essence of the myth, the legend, that the main characters are people with extraordinary abilities, and any connection to reality (that even the heir to a great kingdom can get punched in the face in hand-to-hand combat) is absolutely inappropriate here. Let's remember the bogatyrs from Russian fairy tales, or warriors like Ruslan from "Ruslan and Ludmila" - can you imagine an ordinary "barbarian" throwing him around the meadow, mercilessly breaking the green bushes? :smile38:
Well, that's how it is... because they wanted to sell the film not only to Tolkien fans but also to those who couldn't care less about the Professor, the philosophy of the book, and generally about the beauty and grandeur of the epic...

Statistics

Registered: 12/10/2006 12:52 PM UTC

Posts: 677

4/11/2007 5:31 AM UTC #34

Auto-translated

Okay, we've discussed the movie, now let's talk about the translation. I've come across some gems:
Old Log - a tree that grabbed the hobbits in the ancient forest.
Sam: "My great-grandfather had a whorehouse."
No comment.
It's one thing if the translation was meant to be humorous, but there are just incomprehensible idiocies:
How can you change the word Rohan to Ristania, and the word Mustangirrim?
How can you change Ents to Onts?
How can you translate the mountain Caradhras to the mountain Witheredtop?

Statistics

Registered: 10/25/2006 4:23 PM UTC

Posts: 583

4/11/2007 10:05 AM UTC #35

Auto-translated

By the way, the translation with the "Olden Era" is the best! There, the names of all the Shire locations are translated very well; and not just the Shire ones... As for the word "Lokh" itself, until the mid-90s it meant "willow"; since in Tolkien's work it is an evil tree of the masculine gender (I read the English version, I know for sure!), the translation "willow" is incorrect.
With "Wizertop," it's simple - often, instead of "Sumknicks" or "Torbinns," they write "Bagginns," instead of "Zaskochye" - "Buckland," and so on... It's just laziness to translate all the names. I don't like such translations:mad:
The word "Onty" is a disgrace, IMHO.

С Пути сбивают мелкие достижения, а изощрённые суждения скрывают смысл слов. И вот уже возникают "правильное" и "неправильное"...
- Чжуан-цзы
Сильванис

Statistics

Registered: 7/25/2006 8:26 PM UTC

Posts: 863

4/11/2007 10:09 AM UTC #36

Auto-translated

Yes, you've read various translations. But you know, although awkward translations of names and titles are quite jarring at first glance, they aren't that important, because our minds quickly associate a set of letters with a certain image that we've formed. It's just important not to miss details like the significance of surnames among hobbits, so you can't leave Baggins (and Wise-top as well). But translators often mess up dialogues and descriptions. A prime example is Grigoriev's translation, which, as I understand it, was the basis for the voice acting in our version of Lord of the Rings.

How can you change the word Rohan into the word Ristanya?

I was also surprised by this for a long time, until I heard that it was a simple root-based translation. And the word Rochan comes from words related to arenas and so on, but I haven't verified this statement myself. In general, in Muravyov's translation, which I like the most, it's Ristanya, so I'm used to it, and Rohan is mainly associated with the independent Rohlyandia.

Statistics

Registered: 12/10/2006 12:52 PM UTC

Posts: 677

4/11/2007 12:12 PM UTC #37

Auto-translated

But you know, although the awkward translations of names and titles are quite jarring at first glance, they aren't that important, because our minds quickly associate a set of letters with a certain image that we've created. The only thing is not to miss details like the significance of surnames among hobbits, so you can't leave Baggins (and Wise-top as well).

I completely agree with these words!

I have a complicated relationship with translations. First, I read The Hobbit with the translation of Baggins and a completely bizarre name for Rivendell, "Last Home Refuge." Then came the translation of The Lord of the Rings with Sumknix and Old Lair (I still think the word "Lair" is a mistake here, because I read it in the mid-90s, and then in the edition from the early 2000s, and this word was already perceived only in one meaning; they could have called it "Beech" or "Elm," after all, the type of tree doesn't matter), then "Kistyamur" in a rainbow cover with Torbins and ontas, and Wise-top was generally from the cartoon "The Lord of the Rings."

For me, Rohan is mainly associated with the independent Rohlandia.

Well, I don't know, I initially got used to the word Rohan, and how can it be changed to Mustangrim?
There is also the question of the translation of Bryll or Foothills? It seems that Bryll is the old Slavic word for foothills...

Statistics

Registered: 7/25/2006 8:26 PM UTC

Posts: 863

4/11/2007 1:38 PM UTC #38

Auto-translated

You weren't so lucky; I immediately found decent translations for both ВК and Silmarillion, and I chose the Hobbit myself.

with Torbins and Onts

You can get used to the Onts, but Torbins is actually good; the only alternative in terms of root and sound is Sumkin (Fedor).

Well, I don't know, I initially got used to the word Rohan, and how can it be changed to Mustangrim?

Mustangrim was used to refer to the riders of Ristannia, that's true, but I haven't seen it used to refer to the state itself, or maybe I just didn't remember.

In reply to Saruman

Statistics

Registered: 4/5/2007 10:38 AM UTC

Posts: 26

4/11/2007 2:41 PM UTC #39

Auto-translated

Saruman;82138

Alright, we've discussed the movie, now let's talk about the translation. I've come across some real gems:

How could Ents be turned into Onts?
How could Mount Twist (Zaverten) be translated as Mount Wise-top?

Regarding the onts:smile54: - I think it was just a typo on their part)))). Or maybe they decided to be original). And Wisertop, as already noted, is indeed a word forgotten for translation! And actually, "Wizertop" from the English withertop is more correct, which in Russian perfectly becomes Mount Twist (Zaverten)))) so they were just lazy:smile32:

Added after 33 seconds
and generally, the original is spot on! From the Silmarillion all the way to the Hobbit)))

No mana. No excuse. :smile51:

In reply to Silvanis

Statistics

Registered: 10/2/2006 3:06 PM UTC

Posts: 1,077

4/11/2007 5:43 PM UTC #40

Auto-translated

Silvanis;82176

By the way, the translation with the Old Edition is the best! It has a VERY good translation of the names of all the Shire locations; and not just the Shire... And as for the word "Lokh" itself, until the mid-90s it meant "willow"; since in Tolkien it is an evil tree of the masculine gender (I read the English version, I know for sure!), the translation "willow" is incorrect.
With "Wise Top," it's simple - often instead of "Sumknix" or "Torbinx," they write "Beggins," instead of "Zaskochye" - "Buckland," and so on... It's just laziness to translate all the names. I don't like such translations:mad:
The word "Onty" is a disgrace, IMHO.

I absolutely agree; by the way, I seem to have come across the same translation... I was very pleased.
Down with the bad translation of Rivendell and Beggins; the "correct" Doln and Sumknix (and Sumkin is even better) rule!:D

Сила Тьмы - в бессилии света.
Нет невежества - есть Знание

Statistics

Registered: 12/10/2006 12:52 PM UTC

Posts: 677

4/12/2007 7:34 AM UTC #41

Auto-translated

This could also be done for "Stalker" and "The Lord of the Rings." Recently, in the book "Zviermarillion" (a goblin-style retelling of "The Silmarillion"), anecdotes about "The Lord of the Rings" from various forums were collected at the end (as a bonus).
One of them is this (from the author's perspective):
I recently watched a movie, and I almost fell off my chair at one phrase: "Even though you're a Professor, you're still dark!"
By the way, has anyone else read "Zviermarillion"?

In reply to Saruman

Statistics

Registered: 10/2/2006 3:06 PM UTC

Posts: 1,077

4/12/2007 7:38 AM UTC #42

Auto-translated

Saruman;82555

This could also be applied to "Stalker" and "The Lord of the Rings." Recently, in the book "Zviermarillion" (a goblin-style retelling of "The Silmarillion"), anecdotes about "The Lord of the Rings" from various forums were collected at the end as a bonus.
One of them is like this (from the author's perspective):
"I recently watched a movie, and I almost fell off my chair at one phrase: 'Even though you're a Professor, you're still dark!'"
By the way, has anyone else read "Zviermarillion"?

Unfortunately, I haven't read it... and could you, my friend Sar, post it somewhere here?)

Сила Тьмы - в бессилии света.
Нет невежества - есть Знание